License change vote results
ps at leissner.se
Tue Feb 19 11:29:58 CST 2002
> > For some copyleft-style license perhaps. I'm not entirely against
> > copyleft-style licenses either even if I voted disagree.
> > However don't be so sure that all that voted for it really wants
> > a license like the LGPL that prevent (at least according to your
> > interpretation) using for example proprietary libraries to
> > implement some functionalility.
> This is a spurious argument. You tell us that you voted that you
> disagree, then ask us to not assume that those who voted in
> favor agree
> with the LGPL -- but provide no evidence to the contrary?
The evidence is that the question didn't ask the whether
the voters agreed with the LGPL it asked whether they
thought copyleft was good.
No bait and switch tactics thank you very much.
Copyleft doesn't imply that everything it uses or in
the case of GPL even what uses it should be copyleft
only whatever is derived from it.
A proprietary library that is called from a copylefted
application is obviously not derived from it. Yet the
LGPL under some interpretations prevent this.
So the LGPL goes further than the definition of copyleft
so the question whether supporters of copyleft support
the LGPL is quite valid.
> In any case, the precise license chosen is an issue yet to be
> hashed out;
> and it seems the wine-license mailing list is the place to do that.
True. But I don't think all intrested have signed up yet.
I will continue cross-posting a while yet.
> > Or for that matter prevents Transgaming to add copy
> protection that they
> > can't release openly because of a NDA.
> I'm afraid Transgaming gets no sympathy from me if a future
> Wine license
> prevents them from working on copy protection functionality.
> The DMCA is
> fundamentally broken; technological mechanisms to prevent copying are
> fundamentally broken because there can be no protection for fair use
> rights; and any company that uses such copy protection
> mechanisms should
> be thoroughly boycotted. While I don't condemn TransGaming
> for trying to
> support copy-protection mechanisms in Wine -- corporations are by
> definition amoral --
The DMCA might be (and is IMHO) fundamently broken but NDA:s are not.
The copy protection that Transgaming has implemented is just
an exemple of things that might come under a NDA.
I can imagine 3D accelerators and a lot of other
things that might fall under NDA:s.
Note that some NDA might only be temporary before a
product is released. Surely it would be nice to
have Wine working on the release day.
> I also won't shed any tears if this particular
> business model falls by the wayside.
No business model can exists that requires NDA:s
if disclosure of source is mandated.
If it could be hidden in a external library everthing
would be OK, but alas the LGPL doesn't allow that
under Alexandre's interpretation.
More information about the wine-devel